Angry Birds developer says Apple will be No. 1 for a long time - Page 2

With Android:
-Carriers are back in control of the handset's software.
-What you buy is generally what you get. Providing free OS update to old phones doesn't benefit the carriers nor the OEMs. Carriers want you to keep extending your contracts, and OEMs want to keep selling new handsets.
:

Considering the average contract is 2 years, and customers can't upgrade until 20 months or so into it, it's in a carrier's best interest to keep them happy for at least those 20 months with their current device.

Carriers make next to NO money on full retail phones, especially if someone is going from a Droid to a Droid 2. So no, it doesn't benefit the carriers, AT ALL to make a phone obsolete after only 12 months (or less). Not only will this create unrest with the customer base, but it will also make them start calling in constantly trying to get their upgrade date pushed forward.

When you upgrade a US contract, they don't tack 2 years onto your existing contract, they RESET it so it ends 2 years from that day. This means if you get an upgrade after only 6 months, that company is giving you 2 year pricing for only 6 months more of additional service. That makes no business sense whatsoever.

If you look internationally, you'd see that even in areas where phones are generally unsubsidized and untouched, phones still typically get software updates only to fix bugs and not update OS versions. Hardware makers make a KILLING if people buy new phones. This is one of the reasons apple forced ATT to give the early upgrade pricing on iOS devices. Sure, att takes a hit, but apple gets the full cut. Smart of them.

The real issue here isn't carriers (per se) it's our fixation as a culture on getting cheap products on contract. You can bet if contracts didn't exist like they do now (no equipment subsidies) other hardware makers would care more about updating their software.

As it stands now, they can do whatever they want when it comes to software upgrades because the carrier's will take all the blame. If people actually bought their devices from Samsung, Motorola, Apple, etc. And those companies tried obsoleting hardware early, they'd hear about it.

Let's see. Angry birds on iOS has about 15 million downloads....I don't know how many paid versions vs lite versions are installed on iOS devices. 99 cents a pop. Android has over 30 million downloads.....all ad supported. I am curious which platform has made more money.

I am not a developer, but I wouldn't ever code for Android since there is no good way to monetize a product that I spent time on.

I disagree that iOS will be number 1 for a long time. Android will take over marketshare, but Apple will never be a small player. Those two are going to be top two for a very long time.

You also have to take away the extra development costs for Android. That said we would need empirical evidence. Does anybody know how much you get from admob? Its all pay for click, isnt it? The fill rate can be very low from what I see. So how many plays would it take to make up the $15M * 0,7.? It might happen, but for most developers advertising is going to make very little money.

True, but "good amount of money" being equivalent to "making a living" is your definition, not mine. To me, $750 means a little extra to spend on the family and a bump up in our savings.

The point I was going for is that the Apple Ecosystem (both development and devices) enables non-professionals a low entry point to create and release applications.

For every "Angry Birds", there are a number of non-professional developers who put together useful applications with little effort. They will never break the top 10 (or top 10000) lists, but by making it easy to earn money (even small amounts), it encourages a larger community of active "developers" and hence, a more robust App Store. Case in point, the App Store has my app, while the Android Marketplace does not.

I'm not trying to be discouraging. I'm glad you develop for the iPhone platform.

You also have to take away the extra development costs for Android. That said we would need empirical evidence. Does anybody know how much you get from admob? Its all pay for click, isnt it? The fill rate can be very low from what I see. So how many plays would it take to make up the $15M * 0,7.? It might happen, but for most developers advertising is going to make very little money.

For that reason The Times et. al are moving to paid subscription.

( Apple should drop their 30% to 10%, though).

Rovio estimates that by the end of this year, they'll make (on average) 1 million dollars a month from their Android app. They haven't (as far as I know) released hard numbers about it, but likely they will.

There are other cases though of developers making more money from their ad based apps than they do from the premium ad free versions. Paid apps give much higher revenue up front, but it's once and done and people expect you to continuously update it. (more work, no additional income). Compared to an ad based model where you make less money up front (none) you'll continue making money from that customer for as long as they have the application.

Take angry birds.. You buy it for $1. Or you can get the free ad supported option, which nets them no initial revenue. When they release an update, for those premium users, you get it basically for free, whereas the ad supported users are going back into the app (more eyeballs infront of the ads) giving additional revenue.

The real question is, how much time does it take the average customer to generate $1 in ad revenue for a company, and also how many people are playing angry birds because it's free and wouldnt pay for it otherwise.

With increased number of devices and lower costs for data, etc. I can see an incremental drop to 25% if there was a drop in devs for other platforms or another mobile app platform dropped its rates, but didnt Apple announce the App Store with rates that undercut the competition?

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Rovio estimates that by the end of this year, they'll make (on average) 1 million dollars a month from their Android app. They haven't (as far as I know) released hard numbers about it, but likely they will.

There are other cases though of developers making more money from their ad based apps than they do from the premium ad free versions. Paid apps give much higher revenue up front, but it's once and done and people expect you to continuously update it. (more work, no additional income). Compared to an ad based model where you make less money up front (none) you'll continue making money from that customer for as long as they have the application.

Take angry birds.. You buy it for $1. Or you can get the free ad supported option, which nets them no initial revenue. When they release an update, for those premium users, you get it basically for free, whereas the ad supported users are going back into the app (more eyeballs infront of the ads) giving additional revenue.

The real question is, how much time does it take the average customer to generate $1 in ad revenue for a company, and also how many people are playing angry birds because it's free and wouldnt pay for it otherwise.

Thanks for the stats.

The other question is how long will the revenue stay at £1M a month ( clearly that would take about a year to exceed the income from iOS). As I said games may not be the best for this model - we play until done, or bored, or stuck ( as I am with Cut The Rope). I am happy with Cut The Rope - dont get me wrong it was worth the trivial purchase cost - but I dont finish a lot of games I start, particularly on the iPhone. I move on.

The Twitter app , now, that could make a fortune from me. Twitter is never "done".

Good point, but it is a choice between the devil and deep sea. Both models don't put the consumer in control. How exactly is Apple being in control better than the carrier? It is a tie-in / lock-down either way. At least we are thankful to Apple for giving us a better user experience while we are in a gilded cage.

Your making too much of Apple's so called "gilded cage" though. There are shades of grey here, nothing is just black and white.

The point is that Google is allowing the carriers almost complete control. The only bone they are throwing is that if you are geeky enough and talented enough to mess around with your hardware then you can do stuff with it. Every other part of the equation is pretty much the same as the 90's and puts the carrier in direct control. Other than the freedom to root your phone (if you can), nothing has been gained.

Apple on the other hand, while taking all this over the top criticism for the "gilded cage," actually changed the equation quite substantially. The consumer has total freedom and different freedoms from the situation in the 90's with two exceptions. First, the carrier still has control over the contract, (although you can buy contract free phones in most countries). Secondly, Apple will censor any non-Christian kind of imagery or anything perceived to be un-American in the Apple store.

I'm probably more anti-censorship than anyone, but a little bit of censorship is not the same as taking away almost all the freedoms of the customer. Googles model and Apple's model are not equal in terms of the freedom or lack of it that they provide to the end consumer.

Apple's is better by far even though they censor. The majority of the things they censor are things that are always censored in American media anyway. It's childish and it's stupid, but it's not equivalent to putting the carriers back in control.

With increased number of devices and lower costs for data, etc. I can see an incremental drop to 25% if there was a drop in devs for other platforms or another mobile app platform dropped its rates, but didnt Apple announce the App Store with rates that undercut the competition?

Apps used to be insanely expensive on BBerry and Winmo. I paid $20 for Vlingo on my blackberry. I doubt they'd be able to sell it like that on any platform now (They had it for $10 on android, but now it's free)

It's my understanding that the 30% cut is there to cover card processing fees as well as the data to transmit. I'm sure they could drop to 25% if they dropped support for AMEX :P

Apps used to be insanely expensive on BBerry and Winmo. I paid $20 for Vlingo on my blackberry. I doubt they'd be able to sell it like that on any platform now (They had it for $10 on android, but now it's free)

It's my understanding that the 30% cut is there to cover card processing fees as well as the data to transmit. I'm sure they could drop to 25% if they dropped support for AMEX :P

Apple play ( smart) games with the credit card fees, which are constant. That's why they dont always charge you after a trivial purchase and either wait until you buy more stuff, or a long time, to get the charge against all your recent purchases. I bet it isnt 30% per sale.

This is the issue with anyone who makes and sells any kind of product. The world of selling products is not fair and in many cases makes no sense whatsoever why one product sells and another seemingly better product doesn't.

I'm not sure it's Apple's job or Google's either for that matter to try to change the selling system, even if we all agree it's unfair. Those developers that can either get lucky with a hit app or make themselves lucky (via marketing of the app), should benefit from their success.

Although the app industry is new, at least in this mobile device space, it's very likely that it will become much like other industries, with a select group of dev companies ruling the space. Some may be legacy companies (older software dev companies), yet many may be small upstarts that had one or two hits, earned enough money to grow and develop new apps and are now the new app it-brand.

The one thing Apple has done, and now other companies are following suit, that we should all be grateful for is the creation of this market and the ability of even a single person to get a product to market that can, even if it's unlikely, make millions from.

Show me any other market or product where this is possible? Apple should be getting more accolades for creating this opportunity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

That's right, there aren't 300k developers but there are still over 43,000 developers:

Even if 1,000 of them make a good amount from their apps, that's still leaving 42,000 developers out in the cold and some of them have great apps.

There was a set of data for a particular app online based on chart ranking and I made a graph of it here:

It's quite a steep fall-off as you get to position 70. Although the two factors go hand-in-hand which is why it's hard to draw conclusions form it and explains why it's an exponential curve.

The problem with that statement is 'good apps'. Apps don't have to be good to get more eyeballs. It's the same with movie theatres. Would anyone ever say that Avatar or Titanic were the best movies of all time? Probably not but they are the two highest grossing films of all time from the same director.

Apps get up the rank through publicity. For the publisher in the link in my last post, it was hitting an Italian market, which boosted the sales up a bit and then as soon as it got onto the front page, it sky-rocketed. This is how most ranking systems work including Google. If you appear anywhere after page 3 for certain keywords, your website will get next to no new visitors from that source.

I don't have the time to browse page by page through 50 lists of icons to see apps on the App Store and I can't tell the App Store the kinds of apps I want so I'm never going to find good apps. Plus I can't browse by rating so I can't filter out the junk. My App Store browsing is now once every couple of months and I just search for EA Games or Gameloft and that's it.

Occasionally you get big publishers making games like Chinatown Wars and Tomb Raider and the Guardian of Light, which are big franchises but how do they knock down apps that have been in the chart so long when they are taking all the publicity every single day? It's obvious to me why Angry Birds has stayed at number 1 for so long and it's because it's been at number 1 for so long. Then it gets blogged about everywhere and people read the blogs and buy it and it stays at number 1.

Like I said in the other thread, I think they need to put a time dampener on the charts so that the longer an app is in the charts, it acts as a detriment to its position. If people keep buying in such high volume that it counters this dampening then it deserves its place, otherwise a good deal of its popularity is because of its place in the chart.

Not strictly true. The free version of Angry Birds for Android is ad-supported and on track to make $1m of revenue vs $8m on iOS, which I think has both and has had the app longer. I'd agree that you are likely to make less money on a popular app ad-supported but you could easily make more money from the ad-supported route.

The other question is how long will the revenue stay at £1M a month ( clearly that would take about a year to exceed the income from iOS). As I said games may not be the best for this model - we play until done, or bored, or stuck ( as I am with Cut The Rope). I am happy with Cut The Rope - dont get me wrong it was worth the trivial purchase cost - but I dont finish a lot of games I start, particularly on the iPhone. I move on.

The Twitter app , now, that could make a fortune from me. Twitter is never "done".

I don't know how long it would last. But at the same time, consider that whenever Rovio releases new levels on Android, they are increasing their revenue stream from EVERY customer. New levels on iOS (or other paid app store) would only give additional revenue if those levels encouraged NEW purchases.

I'm the same way when it comes to games. I don't play angry birds a ton, but I know a lot of people who do. But when I do play, every time I open the game up, I'm making rovio some money. (even a small amount) When they release a new level pack, those customers who stopped playing angry birds will start again, on both platforms. So to keep that 1 million dollars a month, rovio just needs to release a new level pack every so often to bring customers back.

On top of that, they're bringing out a way for Android customers to remove ads by offering a premium "key" or something similar. This will mean no more "lifetime" income from those customers, but they'll get a big initial surge of revenue.

The "all features free, but ad supported" and "buy premium to block ads" idea is fairly common in the android market. A lot of apps are switching to it because their customers would prefer "full featured" apps over light ones. It will be interesting to see Rovio's revenue in a few months from now.

Indeed, over 200,000 Apps have been written for Android. ISTM that many, many developers think that the viewpoint expressed above is naive. Instead, they realize that Android is THE place to be for developers.

Do you know something that hundreds of thousands of developers, including multibillion dollar powerhouses, don't realize?

Yes! As a developer, I'm certainly aware of the pulse in the developer community. I know that iPhone is tied to the worst-rated carrier in the country. I know that Verizon has 90+ million subscribers, Sprint has 30+ million and T-Mobile has 40+ million. I know that about 17 percent of Verizon customers will move to iPhone when it is available and I know that Verizon wants an exclusive with AT&T because they know they can steal the T-Mobile and Sprint customers to iPhone that AT&T was unable to attract. I know that android was attractive because of the shear number of users unaccessible to iPhone;however, I'm not naive enough to think that android will continue to prosper as soon as iPhone is available on the other carriers. I hope this helps you understand.

I don't know how long it would last. But at the same time, consider that whenever Rovio releases new levels on Android, they are increasing their revenue stream from EVERY customer. New levels on iOS (or other paid app store) would only give additional revenue if those levels encouraged NEW purchases.

I'm the same way when it comes to games. I don't play angry birds a ton, but I know a lot of people who do. But when I do play, every time I open the game up, I'm making rovio some money. (even a small amount) When they release a new level pack, those customers who stopped playing angry birds will start again, on both platforms. So to keep that 1 million dollars a month, rovio just needs to release a new level pack every so often to bring customers back.

On top of that, they're bringing out a way for Android customers to remove ads by offering a premium "key" or something similar. This will mean no more "lifetime" income from those customers, but they'll get a big initial surge of revenue.

The "all features free, but ad supported" and "buy premium to block ads" idea is fairly common in the android market. A lot of apps are switching to it because their customers would prefer "full featured" apps over light ones. It will be interesting to see Rovio's revenue in a few months from now.

I can see that work - it would however be a model which could also work on iOS so this is not an iOS vs Android debate so much, as an ads supported vs payment upfront model.

I can see the strong advantages of the ad supported and premium model. Continuous revenue and the chance to get people to pay twice.

Good point, but it is a choice between the devil and deep sea. Both models don't put the consumer in control. How exactly is Apple being in control better than the carrier? It is a tie-in / lock-down either way. At least we are thankful to Apple for giving us a better user experience while we are in a gilded cage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wovel

Well in one big way. The phone gets new features for 2-3 years after you purchased it.

Exactly. Carriers are useless, Apple is Apple. No way I'm letting any carrier dictate what my smartphone/ tablet/ whatever does. All they need to do is STFU and just give me my data and my connection at a decent price, like ISPs.

What added value, on top of basic network connection, has the carrier ever given, except for subsidised phones?

I never claimed it to be a statistic, but it IS a single example of the fact that a free phone does not a cheapskate make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdasd

For a lot of people a $0 phone is a phone, not a device to use apps. The fact that you came from the iPhone market means you were used to the app world. A consumer who walks into CarPhone Warehouse and gets a free phone - which happens to be Android - may not, and probably will not - buy apps. She, or he, just got a phone. I even know of iPhone users with little use for apps, other than those installed.

For someone who called out my example as being an anecdote, you're offering nothing more than supposition here. Can you back any of this up with statistics or examples? If not, then it's even less valuable than my example - which was at very least, a real, factual example.

To say that someone new to Android probably won't buy apps because they're not "used to" an app world is as ridiculous as saying a first time iPhone user won't buy apps because they're, likewise, not "used to" an app world. By now, apps are a well known capability of smartphones. That's not to say there aren't people who will use the base capabilities of the phone and never buy an app, but that's equally possible on both platforms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdasd

but we are not "dreaming" anything here. A developer of the MOST SUCCESSFUL app in the history of mobile apps has said that iOS will be dominant for years.

First, Mr. Vesterbacka said Apple will be the number one platform for a long time from a developer perspective". To some extent, what platform a developer prefers is less important than the userbase a platform allows that developer access to. So while developers may prefer iOS, it's absurd to suggest that they'll ignore other popular platforms, even if developing for them is more challenging. And, in fact, Rivio is a perfect example of exactly this.

Second, this very same developer is also quoted as saying that the ad-based model that's more prevalent on Android is preferable to the paid-app model. That's not to say an ad-based model isn't also available to iOS users, but it's another example that there's value on both platforms.

So again, you can continue to dream up reasons why developers will shun Android, but your very own prized example of Rovio is proving you wrong.

And I'm neither an Android or Apple fanboy, I very much liked my iPhone, and I equally like my Android. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of making claims against platform A that could just as equally be made against platform B, and taking issue with a statement of mine being disregarded as an anecdote by someone making even greater anecdotal claims.

Exactly. Carriers are useless, Apple is Apple. No way I'm letting any carrier dictate what my smartphone/ tablet/ whatever does. All they need to do is STFU and just give me my data and my connection at a decent price, like ISPs.

What added value, on top of basic network connection, has the carrier ever given, except for subsidised phones?

Ive never seen you crack the whip like that. I like it. Release your anger.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Exactly. Carriers are useless, Apple is Apple. No way I'm letting any carrier dictate what my smartphone/ tablet/ whatever does. All they need to do is STFU and just give me my data and my connection at a decent price, like ISPs, who aren't even shining models of service

Being both an iPhone and Android user, that issue exists on both platforms. On iOS, you have Apple dictating what apps will be allowed on it's phone, what it's interface can and can't look like, etc. On Android, you have carriers mucking up the OS with their own shitty apps.

And on both platforms, intrepid users can largely circumvent the powers that be and use their phones as they please.

In my example, I'll agree that my Android, as it came from Verizon, offered a horrible user experience out of the box. My iPhone was a far smoother and more pleasing experience. On the other hand, having gone down the whole Jailbreak/Root road, I'll say that I was able to set up my Android far more fitting to how I prefer to use the device than I was on the iPhone.

So for me, it's largely a wash - iPhone looked nicer, and had higher quality apps, Android is a little rough around the corners but has more capabilities. If Apple lightens up on the iron fist by which they control their platform, I may return to an iPhone when my current contract is up. On the other hand, the myriad of choices afforded by the Android platform in terms of screen size, capabilities, carrier compatibility and price can't be ignored.

I mean the region that it warrants seriously buying into the App Store developer marketing. So many times the media and even Apple portray the App Store as though it's a developer's paradise where it's easy to get rich and pick up apps like Angry Birds as examples. Angry Birds cost $100,000 to make.

Angry Birds has made about $8m, the Tom Tom app around $5m and Doodle Jump $3m. Gameloft made $35m in just 2008/09 from iPhone apps. If their sales just stayed at the same rate, their total now would be over $60m.

This is what I mean when it's slightly false that Apple put out numbers like paying $1b to developers when over 6% went to a single developer.

You have a fair point though that it's a good setup to quickly generate some income for anyone but I also think that benefit is in itself a negative. People are drawn into developing casual, featureless apps to make some money on the side. Anybody would but it creates a pile of redundant 'me too' apps that clutter up the store, it dilutes the quality of software and lowers the benchmarks for other developers. I'm not meaning to cover every app including your own but in general, software that is developed in a short time is not that useful nor good quality.

I don't get where Apple changed their opinion about quality. It was always quality first over volume but now anyone can throw an app on the store and sell it for a buck. They put an LED Flash on the iPhone so guess what happens. You get over 70 (I stopped counting) apps that turn the freaking LED on to use as a light.

I imagine one of those apps turns the LED on in a way that's superior to the others given names like Brightest Flashlight Pro suggesting that somehow other apps don't quite turn the LED on enough or are perhaps for mere amateurs.

How do you even resolve that situation after a few years? Imagine if the Mac platform was like that, just inundated with thousands of apps that just toggle a setting. Obviously Apple made some steps by sweeping out some useless apps but they need a bigger brush. Surely after somebody submitted the 70th app for turning the LED on, did someone not just say 'do we need another app that only turns the LED on'?

I think one enforced rule should be that if an app is submitted that is a utility and the app exists, that unless it offers superior or unique functionality, it's not needed and also to prevent it being unfair that basic apps like switching the LED on must be free. The App Store guidelines have a rule like this ('we don't need any more fart apps') but it's not strictly enforced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmgregory1

I'm not sure it's Apple's job or Google's either for that matter to try to change the selling system, even if we all agree it's unfair. Those developers that can either get lucky with a hit app or make themselves lucky (via marketing of the app), should benefit from their success.

I like the idea of allowing anyone to get a chance to shine and as you rightly say, Apple should be commended for the opportunity. However, when it's not controlled then as always the selfish and greedy try to spam their way to the top through marketing, provocation or whatever else gets people talking about it.

I've seen apps that users have absolutely hated in the top 10 charts and have thousands of 1/5 ratings. Now ok one person's junk is another person's treasure but I think user ratings need to hold more weight, even if they use trusted reviewers. This way even casual developers don't get lost in a sea of low quality, unmanaged software. The word I like to use is discoverability. There's no way I can find the gems in that pile of 300,000+ apps if I have no easy way of filtering the garbage out the way.

I think one enforced rule should be that if an app is submitted that is a utility and the app exists, that unless it offers superior or unique functionality, it's not needed and also to prevent it being unfair that basic apps like switching the LED on must be free. The App Store guidelines have a rule like this ('we don't need any more fart apps') but it's not strictly enforced.

Yeah, but you are making subjective judgements here. Do you want only one clock app? One weather app?

Quote:

I've seen apps that users have absolutely hated in the top 10 charts and have thousands of 1/5 ratings. Now ok one person's junk is another person's treasure but I think user ratings need to hold more weight, even if they use trusted reviewers. This way even casual developers don't get lost in a sea of low quality, unmanaged software. The word I like to use is discoverability. There's no way I can find the gems in that pile of 300,000+ apps if I have no easy way of filtering the garbage out the way.

Advertising is essential - for that reason the guy in his bedroom will dis-appear in the next few years.

Indeed, over 200,000 Apps have been written for Android. ISTM that many, many developers think that the viewpoint expressed above is naive. Instead, they realize that Android is THE place to be for developers.

Do you know something that hundreds of thousands of developers, including multibillion dollar powerhouses, don't realize?

AH, the trolls speak out with their nonsense. The truth is far far different. Most. Yes MOST of the Android apps are junk and are not making money. Developers have said over and over again that it is very difficult to make money with the Android platform, versus the over $1 BILLION paid out to Apple iOS developers to date. The overwhelming majority of quality developers clearly realize that the Apple platform is the place to be, and may stick their toe in the water on Android.

"Though both models generate revenue, the ad-based model is preferable to the paid app model, according to Rovio.One deciding factor is updates which are necessary to keep fans nterested in the game. With iOS, updates are available for free to those who already purchased this app. All revenue for Rovio is generated on this first purchase only. With Android, revenue is generated*throughout the life of the game – from the original version and through all future updates advertising is present. revenue is generated*throughout the life of the game"

Android may well be an ugly duckling, but don't delude yourself that it isn't and won't increasingly be an attractive platform for deveopers.

If you are arguing that Android's ad based model is better and makes more money than Apple's paid model, you are not making an argument that is based on any logic.

Apple and Android have both paid apps and ad based apps.

The only real difference is paid apps on Android can be stolen.

If Rovio or any other developer, like Rovio, finds that ad based apps makes more money, then they will stop developing or very selectively pick paid apps.

Folks, this is the key quote. And it's what I've been thinking ever since the iPhone got an app store. There are only two companies in the smartphone market today -- apple and microsoft -- that truly are computer platform companies (ie, companies that "know what they are doing and call the shots").

To be a platform company, you need multiple competencies. You can't be a one trick pony. You've got to be able to do software, hardware (or if not doing the hardware yourself, understand it very, very well), marketing, R&D, and developer support. You also need to make sure your platform interfaces with other platforms well. It's a big complicated hairy mess and there aren't many companies with a track record of doing that successfully over the long haul.

Google and RIM are both one trick ponies. The only difference between them is that Google's pony is incredibly profitable. But they still have yet to really do anything outside of search that's anything more than a hobby. If it weren't for Microsoft's implosion leaving a huge demand for a non-Apple platform, Android wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is today.

As the years pass, I think we will see Microsoft slowly supplant Android as developers and customers alike grow weary of Google's amateur hour performance. We will settle down into what I wish the PC world had been -- a fairly stable split of the market between MS and Apple. Two very different business models that enables competition at the platform level. A far better outcome than platform monopoly, in my humble opinion.

I see Android as developing into the new feature phone. That is, the vast majority of new customers to the platform are just getting what is being pushed, by advertising and at the time of sale, and don't know or care much about what the OS is capable of beyond what the phone does out of the box.

That's a problem for developers, because the big numbers for Android come at the expense of having a particularly motivated user base. If the phone has a useable browser and does email text and chat, it's all good. After all, it's likely the customer came into the store just looking to replace a dumb phone. Why bother with a lot of apps?

Look at how Android and iOS are marketed. iOS (both iPhone and iPad) ads are all about apps and functionality. Android ads are all about attitude and bluster. Android is marketed like the Razr, as a matter of style and bling, with a little spec swagger thrown in. iOS is marketed as a cool new world of things you can do while on the go. I think that says a lot about how Apple and Android handset makers view their respective customer base.

Now, being the default feature phone OS means huge sales, but it also means most people are going to be using those handsets for little more than browsing, email and texting. That's great for Google, but not so great for devs. Sure, a few top games might have breakout sales, but my impression is that the average Android user now is just happy to have the stuff that came with the new phone, regarding it as huge upgrade from that old Samsung clamshell.

There will always be savvy Android users that seek out the best hardware, customize their handsets and install a lot of apps. But will there be enough, compared to the former "just a phone" crowd that have been transformed into "just a browser" Android users, to keep a thriving developer community alive?

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

If you are arguing that Android's ad based model is better and makes more money than Apple's paid model, you are not making an argument that is based on any logic.

I'm not arguing anything, merely repeating comments made by Rovio - that the ad-based model is preferable from their standpoint. Why they chose that model on Android and the paid-app model on iOS is anyone's guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickag

The only real difference is paid apps on Android can be stolen.

And once again, Android is being faulted for something iOS is equally guilty of. Not only can paid apps be stolen on iOS, but it's far easier to do so thanks to Hackulous's Installer.

A constructive argument is impossible when you guys continually sling mud at Android when your beloved iOS is knee deep in it as well.

Considering the average contract is 2 years, and customers can't upgrade until 20 months or so into it, it's in a carrier's best interest to keep them happy for at least those 20 months with their current device.

Carriers make next to NO money on full retail phones, especially if someone is going from a Droid to a Droid 2. So no, it doesn't benefit the carriers, AT ALL to make a phone obsolete after only 12 months (or less). Not only will this create unrest with the customer base, but it will also make them start calling in constantly trying to get their upgrade date pushed forward.

When you upgrade a US contract, they don't tack 2 years onto your existing contract, they RESET it so it ends 2 years from that day. This means if you get an upgrade after only 6 months, that company is giving you 2 year pricing for only 6 months more of additional service. That makes no business sense whatsoever.

If you look internationally, you'd see that even in areas where phones are generally unsubsidized and untouched, phones still typically get software updates only to fix bugs and not update OS versions. Hardware makers make a KILLING if people buy new phones. This is one of the reasons apple forced ATT to give the early upgrade pricing on iOS devices. Sure, att takes a hit, but apple gets the full cut. Smart of them.

The real issue here isn't carriers (per se) it's our fixation as a culture on getting cheap products on contract. You can bet if contracts didn't exist like they do now (no equipment subsidies) other hardware makers would care more about updating their software.

As it stands now, they can do whatever they want when it comes to software upgrades because the carrier's will take all the blame. If people actually bought their devices from Samsung, Motorola, Apple, etc. And those companies tried obsoleting hardware early, they'd hear about it.

What planet are you living on? This is exactly the position that carriers have historically taken, and what has actually been happening until Apple broke the mold. (And is still the only one to have done it almost completely.) And as to carriers trying to obsolete hardware - again ROFLOL - how about how they have crippled devices (that have already built in functionality) so that consumers can't access the full capabilities of the device (Verizon historically being the worst offender)?

Rovio estimates that by the end of this year, they'll make (on average) 1 million dollars a month from their Android app. They haven't (as far as I know) released hard numbers about it, but likely they will.

There are other cases though of developers making more money from their ad based apps than they do from the premium ad free versions. Paid apps give much higher revenue up front, but it's once and done and people expect you to continuously update it. (more work, no additional income). Compared to an ad based model where you make less money up front (none) you'll continue making money from that customer for as long as they have the application.

Take angry birds.. You buy it for $1. Or you can get the free ad supported option, which nets them no initial revenue. When they release an update, for those premium users, you get it basically for free, whereas the ad supported users are going back into the app (more eyeballs infront of the ads) giving additional revenue.

The real question is, how much time does it take the average customer to generate $1 in ad revenue for a company, and also how many people are playing angry birds because it's free and wouldnt pay for it otherwise.

No - they'll continue to make money as long as you continue to USE the application, not have it. There in lies the rub as people get bored with apps very quickly, and at a buck or two a pop, have no problem buying new ones on a whim.

What planet are you living on? This is exactly the position that carriers have historically taken, and what has actually been happening until Apple broke the mold. (And is still the only one to have done it almost completely.) And as to carriers trying to obsolete hardware - again ROFLOL - how about how they have crippled devices (that have already built in functionality) so that consumers can't access the full capabilities of the device (Verizon historically being the worst offender)?

Every us carrier is infamous for crippling their devices. Period. Verizon had some of the better known lawsuits, but they're not the "worst" offender more than one type of water is wetter than the next.

And apple broke the mold of PHONE MAKERS. Again, carriers can ONLY get you to sign new contracts every 2 years. It's hardware makers who make a killing if you get phones earlier than that.

It is not in the carrier's best interest to obsolete hardware before 2 years is up. Again, show me where this is not the case when you look at HOW CONTRACTS WORK.

If you really think a carrier is making a killing by giving you a 600 phone for 200 every year when you signed for 2 years.. you got another thing coming.

No - they'll continue to make money as long as you continue to USE the application, not have it. There in lies the rub as people get bored with apps very quickly, and at a buck or two a pop, have no problem buying new ones on a whim.

and again, if someone has an ad supported app and an update comes out, they open it and continue to generate revenue. Paid apps as large initial payout and that's it.

So those developers either need to make the upfront cost high enough to subsidize future development, or make "sequels" to charge for the new content.

don't really get this debate. both iOS and Android obviously have a solid market future as Apple and Google keep pushing them forward, however they do. Apple in the profitable high end and Android in the generic OEM/telco commodity market.

the real questions are whether RIM can hang on to its profitable enterprise niche, whether Nokia will find a way out of its current tailspin, whether Windows Phone can get any significant market share back (by making a deal with Nokia probably), and whether the other hopefuls like HP/Web OS can get a foothold at all.

for us consumers, the question is really how the respective ecosystems evolve and add more to our lives. Apple's iOS/iTunes, Google's cloud, RIM's enterprise services, MS' Live, and Nokia's Ovi effort. what Apple did accomplish was dramatically bringing down the price of apps across the board - now for everyone.

for developers, no matter how you look at it or whatever platform, there are a lot of possibilities today for independents that did not exist three years ago. and we are witnessing a burst of creativity as a result. which is a very good thing.

of course you can react to the attitudes of each company. that's fun! Apple is brilliant but arrogant. Google is clever but phony ("open" yeah sure). MS and RIM both total BS CEO's. Nokia fumbling ... plenty of material for comments there ....

and again, if someone has an ad supported app and an update comes out, they open it and continue to generate revenue. Paid apps as large initial payout and that's it.

So those developers either need to make the upfront cost high enough to subsidize future development, or make "sequels" to charge for the new content.

I think you're missing his point. If I no longer USE the application then it doesn't matter how many future updates come out. I've either deleted the app from my phone or simply don't run it anymore. Accepting/downloading an update doesn't run the app, therefore no ad revenue generated.

and again, if someone has an ad supported app and an update comes out, they open it and continue to generate revenue. Paid apps as large initial payout and that's it.

So those developers either need to make the upfront cost high enough to subsidize future development, or make "sequels" to charge for the new content.

Any update to cut the rope is not going to get me playing it as I am done with it. I still see games as not working with this model. You either finish them, get stuck or move on to a better game. A real version 2 ( a la civ 2 ) might get me interested again.

Rovio estimates that by the end of this year, they'll make (on average) 1 million dollars a month from their Android app. They haven't (as far as I know) released hard numbers about it, but likely they will.

There are other cases though of developers making more money from their ad based apps than they do from the premium ad free versions. Paid apps give much higher revenue up front, but it's once and done and people expect you to continuously update it. (more work, no additional income). Compared to an ad based model where you make less money up front (none) you'll continue making money from that customer for as long as they have the application.

Take angry birds.. You buy it for $1. Or you can get the free ad supported option, which nets them no initial revenue. When they release an update, for those premium users, you get it basically for free, whereas the ad supported users are going back into the app (more eyeballs infront of the ads) giving additional revenue.

The real question is, how much time does it take the average customer to generate $1 in ad revenue for a company, and also how many people are playing angry birds because it's free and wouldnt pay for it otherwise.

The point is that Google is allowing the carriers almost complete control. The only bone they are throwing is that if you are geeky enough and talented enough to mess around with your hardware then you can do stuff with it.

I'm probably more anti-censorship than anyone, but a little bit of censorship is not the same as taking away almost all the freedoms of the customer.

Clearly, you've never used an Android phone, or if you have, you're totally blinded by your zealousness. Carriers have almost complete control on Android? They take away almost all the freedoms of the customers? WHAT?!??!?

The only thing the carriers do with Android phones is pre-install a bunch of crap apps. You can ignore them, use any number of utilities to hide/disable them, or with a simple root, you can remove them completely. Beyond that, carriers don't control the phone at all - you're free to install whatever you want, from wherever you want, and you can replace major UI components of the OS with ones that suit your tastes and needs (without needing to root). Carriers don't control much, and that's one of Android's attractions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

Apple on the other hand, while taking all this over the top criticism for the "gilded cage," actually changed the equation quite substantially. The consumer has total freedom and different freedoms from the situation in the 90's with two exceptions. First, the carrier still has control over the contract, (although you can buy contract free phones in most countries). Secondly, Apple will censor any non-Christian kind of imagery or anything perceived to be un-American in the Apple store.

This whole statement is patently absurd. You start by saying the Apple customer has total freedom, and finish by admitting that Apple can and does censor what can be done with/to the phone based on their own subjective standards of morality. That, my friend, is not freedom, not even close. That's like saying the Taliban provides it's subjects total freedom, with the one exception of requiring them to live strictly within sharia law.

Ummm, read much? Rovio has stated that they're on track to make 1 million dollars a month by the end of the year in ad revenue from Angry Birds on Android. Don't make any money on free apps, right

Which planet are you living on? Developers get about 5 cents a click through. Are you suggesting that people who play angry birds will actually click through 20 million times a month consistently? Do you know anyone at all who actually clicks on ads?

Which planet are you living on? Developers get about 5 cents a click through. Are you suggesting that people who play angry birds will actually click through 20 million times a month consistently? Do you know anyone at all who actually clicks on ads?

Developers get about 5 cents a click through. Are you suggesting that people who play angry birds will actually click through 20 million times a month consistently? Do you know anyone at all who actually clicks on ads?

They'll make 2 or 3 percent of that through ads per month, at best.

Do you guys read at all?

The quote was directly from the article I linked to. Rovio themselves said that they are on track to make 1 million a month through ad revenue from Angry Birds on Android. That isn't just me talking, that's a statement from Rovio. Don't believe me, read the damn article dude.